VGE's "conclusion". The debate on EU - Turkish relations is developing but not in the direction of an immediate decision on opening negotiations. Or at least not negotiations with the single objective of accession. If there are negotiations, they are expected to have the goal of commonly defining the best form for framing reciprocal relations; and this formula could be something other than accession. Certain political forces and personalities go even further in determining other formulas. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing published a paper at the end of last week in around fifteen European newspapers in different countries (one of them in a Turkish daily). This followed an analysis of this complex problem and the conclusion it needs, namely that on 17 December, "The European Council should open negotiations to establish a common zone of economic prosperity and set up permanent structures for political cooperation, constitutive of a privileged partnership between Turkey and the European Union". Accession in Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's opinion is not possible and the EU "has to be able to offer Turkey an elaborate, honourable and precise proposal".
The reasons for saying no. Several commentators consider that it is enough to indicate, while working within the negotiations, that formulas other than accession are taken into consideration. They consider it essential that there is more than a "yes" or "no" choice on the table (see our bulletin on 26 November p 6 on the declarations of Angela Merkel, leader of the German Christian Democrats). It is true that Ralf Dahrendorf asserted that it is necessary to negotiate "the integral entry of Ankara into the Union, and that's for certain, there's no ambiguity". But there are a number of precautions that should be taken with the opinion of this former Commissioner, who has long opposed any progress in European integration, such as the single currency, which he opposed ferociously. He is a Euro-sceptic and that's for certain (to use his categorical language). At the opposite end of the spectrum, others even oppose the opening of negotiations, whatever oratorical precautions are taken because they believe that if these negotiations begin, everything has been decided and the end result decided automatically. Robert Badinter believes this.
The impression one gets is that the closer the approach of the 17 December summit, the greater the reticence regarding Turkish accession. Their main reason is their conviction that the EU and Turkey would not be able to have any more ambitious objectives. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing does not consider this as a risk but as a certainty: "Turkish accession, whatever the date, would change the nature of the European project. Firstly, this accession won't be an isolated case. The queue is already growing…And subsequently a permanent accession process, destabilising the system and causing it to lose its original rationale". The EU will therefore be, "condemned to slide towards being a regional United Nations, a structure for holding meetings, dialogue and specific examples of cooperation. In this case, it won't be able to exist or play a role. The world will evolve without Europe".
An instructive "colloquium". VGE backs up his conclusions with an analysis of the institutional effects of Turkish accession on how the Council and European Parliament work and draws on a number of figures to back up his case. I don't intend to summarise his text, which is available in most European languages. I would simply like to take into consideration some of the developments which are less apparent, particularly the colloquium organised last Thursday by the European Institute of International Relations (EIIR) where a number of first rate MEPs and other well known figures spoke. There were also contributions from the public too. At least four elements deserve some further attention:
a) Elmar Brok, president of the European Parliament foreign affairs committee (in this context he is supervising preparatory work on the EP's position, which will have the last word on the matter) and who provided some first hand indications relating to ongoing preparations;
b) Jacques Toubon and Jean-Louis Bourlanges made strong demands for citizens' considerations to be taken into account if public opinion were not to become increasingly alienated from the European project;
c) Michel Rocard went in the other direction by supporting Turkish accession;
d) Certain contributions from the floor gave increasing cause for concern about this issue, which could become an explosive hot potato for Europe.
Our patient readers can catch the rest tomorrow.
(F.R.)